9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal
Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal The Applicant filed an Application for condonation of delay of 334 days in filing the Appeal. The history of the case reveals that the Application, along with the Appeal, was initially dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequent attempts for restoration were also unsuccessful until the matter reached the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a reevaluation of the Application for condonation of delay. The Applicant contended that the delay was due to the sudden illness of the Advocate's clerk, who was responsible for preparing the necessary documents for the Appeal. However, during the hearing, it was noted that no Medical Certificate regarding the illness was filed, no affidavit from the clerk was presented, and essential details like the clerk's name, duration, and nature of illness were missing from the Application. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay rested on the Applicant, and in the absence of concrete evidence, the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the Application for condonation of delay, as well as the Stay Petition and Appeal, were dismissed. Conclusion: The judgment highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to support a request for condonation of delay in legal proceedings. In this case, the failure to produce a Medical Certificate, affidavit, and essential details regarding the illness of the Advocate's clerk led to the dismissal of the Application for condonation of delay. The decision underscores the necessity of meeting the burden of proof when seeking an extension of time in filing appeals, emphasizing the need for diligence and completeness in presenting justifications for delays in legal procedures.
|
